I found these recent rescues on Jewell and Ammo a bit confounding (http://www.unionleader.com/article/20180723/NEWS07/180729848).

In both cases the victims required assistance (and one a full carry) off the mountain. But once safely back at the trail head both opted not to go to hospital.

Is it unreasonable to expect a rescued person will need immediate medical attention?

cb

TJsName

07-23-2018, 10:50 PM

I found these recent rescues on Jewell and Ammo a bit confounding (http://www.unionleader.com/article/20180723/NEWS07/180729848).

In both cases the victims required assistance (and one a full carry) off the mountain. But once safely back at the trail head both opted not to go to hospital.

Is it unreasonable to expect a rescued person will need immediate medical attention?

cb

It doesn't say that they didn't go to the hospital, just that they didn't take an ambulance. There are injuries one could sustain that would severely limit the ability to hike but not warrant a trip to the hospital. A 'leg injury' is quite vague. Severely sprained ankle? Torn hamstring? Even a torn/blown out knee (torn ACL/MCL) might prevent someone from descending, but not necessarily require immediate medical attention.

Raven

07-24-2018, 05:45 AM

A lot of people refuse the ambulance ride to save $500-$1000. They may go to the hospital themselves on their own as they don't require the emergency systems on an ambulance. They may opt for other health care options. Hospitals are expensive and an emergency room can't do anything for a severe sprain you can't do yourself. I had a level 2 moderate sprain last July in the Whites. Fortunately no carry out. The second time I rollled it on the way out I felt like I might like one but I groaned and persisted relying heavily on a walking stick.

People may already be thinking they could be paying for the rescue that they actually needed. Maybe a $500 bag of ice and $725 Ace bandage is not appealing. I don't go to hospitals for muscle injury either. A break? Sure. I go to bodyworkers for muscle injury.

Now if the injured were to roll off the litter at the trailhead, skip to the car, and yell, "thanks for the help," there's going to be a few justifiably frustrated people. But, this could be a legitimate reality. It sounds like in both cases the injured were evaluated at the trailhead on their exit before leaving. That evaluation would determine whether I opted for a hospital or not. The woman on Ammo hiked with help out after rolling an ankle. Doesn't sound too severe.

Perhaps people are calling too quickly in some cases before opting to try to self rescue.i would believe that for sure. It's hard to know in these cases. The S&R team cannot generally diagnose so you're not going to get details on injury unless they have people with the appropriate level of care to do so on team. So we're left with "lower leg injury." That could a sprain or it could be cut off.

egilbe

07-24-2018, 07:19 AM

If someone needs to be carried off the mountain, they are too injured to go without an ambulance ride. That's my opinion. Until that point, walk your damnself off the mountain

datbrew

07-24-2018, 09:02 AM

If someone needs to be carried off the mountain, they are too injured to go without an ambulance ride. That's my opinion. Until that point, walk your damnself off the mountain

As Raven already pointed out, many injuries on the trail aren't life threatening ones. They do, however, prevent walking long distances up/down rocky terrain. If I blow my ACL and follow your logic here I risk taking too long to get to safety and then very well may end up needing an ambulance ride due to hypothermia or some other ailment.

A common argument for charging for S&R is that it requires large amounts of resources that could potentially have been used elsewhere. An ambulance ride is the exact same, especially in northern NH where resources are already spread out and scarce. If they choose to forgo the service, so be it.

sierra

07-24-2018, 01:35 PM

I've been discussing this on other sites and there are two camps for sure. Myself, I see no reason to drive up the healthcare cost by taking an ambulance, when a waiting car can do the job just as well. With healthcare the way it is, I'm perplexed as to why people are insisting an ambulance is required just because they were littered down. One thing has nothing to do with the other. SAR's job is to get you off the mountain, what happens after that, is really not their concern or anybody else's for that matter. This brings up another reoccurring issue, why people go off the rails armchair quarterbacking situations like this, when they hold little to know facts. If a detailed report comes out, its worthy and interesting to discuss the facts and have a dialog on what went down, outside of that, its presumptuous at best to take a hard line, imo.